UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:08 am

Bulger mother 'sees son's killer'

The mother of murdered child James Bulger has told a newspaper how she tracked down one of her son's killers. Denise Fergus said she was "paralysed with hatred" and could not bring herself to confront Robert Thompson.

According to the News of the World, she plans to trace Jon Venables who, with Thompson, was convicted of murdering two-year-old James in 1993.

The killers, who were aged 11 at the time, are in their early twenties and have been granted anonymity for life.

They were released from detention in 2001 having served under eight years and were given new identities and addresses.

According to the News of the World, Mrs Fergus feels that knowing where the men are gives her a sense of power.

She told the paper she had been sent a letter by an anonymous 'well-wisher' in which Thompson's daytime movements were outlined.

The 37-year-old mother of three then went to the area described in the letter on numerous occasions and waited until she found him in September.

She said she recognised him "in an instant. It was such a shock to see him in front of me.

"This was the person who murdered my little James. The person I last saw as a smiling 11-year-old in the dock all those years ago.

"I wanted to rush up to him and scream, 'Why did you kill my child!'. Yet I was turned to stone - paralysed with hatred.

"I was close enough to him, about 20 feet or so, to know without any doubt it was him.

Mrs Fergus said: "I was staring at him and he was none the wiser. Part of me wanted to jump out of the car and punch him but I was paralysed with the hatred I feel for him.

"In the end I just stared after him as he wandered down the street, turned a corner - and was gone."

Mrs Fergus said it was now her aim to find Venables and track him down in the same way.

"It gives me a sense of power knowing I can spot them," she said.

"I have no intention of doing anything - I just want to know what they look like and where they are."

Thompson and Venables, then aged 10, abducted James from a shopping centre in Merseyside and tortured him on a railway line.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4048957.stm

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:49 am

I remember when this happened and it was in all the newspapers over here. if anybody has read the details of what these two adolescents did the poor little boy they will be sickened by it. where does a ten year old boy learn such things? It is a sorry world when a child is not safe and can be harmed by other children in such a sickening way

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:40 pm

And no doubt the "police protection" will now move Thomson & Venables at the British taxpayers expense to yet another "safe" place!! :yh_angry

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:45 pm

It was big news in Canada too, and I expect all over the world.. I remember watching the surveilance Video from the shopping centre and seeing little Jamie lured away, taking the older boys hand so trustingly.

I don't know how young boys can be so evil.. but it happens all the time I come accross news articles so disturbing I don't even repost them. The ones I do post are mild compared to them.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:30 pm

>>^..^ It was big news in Canada too, and I expect all over the world.. I remember watching the surveilance Video from the shopping centre and seeing little Jamie lured away, taking the older boys hand so trustingly.

I don't know how young boys can be so evil.. but it happens all the time I come accross news articles so disturbing I don't even repost them. The ones I do post are mild compared to them.
THANKFUL FOR SMALL MERCIES!!

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:32 pm

abbey wrote: THANKFUL FOR SMALL MERCIES!!
LOL ~ I will continue to censor as not to shock anyone severely

It's the least I can do.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:20 pm

Yes, it was all over the news here too. But you will still see young kid wandering about alone in shopping malls, when their parents are busy window shopping. Security staff every day are finding kids wandering off alone.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:59 am

How Noble of the "News of the Screws" to assist in this crusade. I cannot comment on how I would feel about seeing these two, well actually like any parent I can, I would probably attack the pair of them on sight (did I say probably).

However they are going to be around for quite a time and if they are going to be tracked down every time they move where is it going to end. It is don at the taxpayers expense and it only takes the NOW to flash some money at someone in the relocation chain and bingo it starts again.

Incidentally I cannot remember which of the kids it was but the lead detective at the tiome said he was the most chilling personality he had ever interviewed, this was a20 year carreer detective talking about a 9 year old.

Perahps the sentence was incorrect.

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:48 am

apparently, however, I've heard and I'm not sure if this is common knowledge but Mrs bulger was using her son as a decoy while she went shoplifting. Not that this means she deserved to lose her son in such a brutal way but I thought people might be interested to know this fact.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:22 am

beautyful wrote: apparently, however, I've heard and I'm not sure if this is common knowledge but Mrs bulger was using her son as a decoy while she went shoplifting. Not that this means she deserved to lose her son in such a brutal way but I thought people might be interested to know this fact.

I'm sure if that statement was true then The News Of The World, admirable paper that it is ( not ) would have had no compunction in printing it.

I, like most of uk followed the story & i don't ever recall hearing that at the trial.

And the judicial system the way it is, i'm sure that Thomson & Venables solicitors would have submitted this evidence in court.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:05 am

>>^..^ Bulger mother 'sees son's killer'.

The mother of murdered child James Bulger has told a newspaper how she tracked down one of her son's killers.

Much as I find the killing of James Bulger a terrible and sad event, I can't think

that Denise Fergus is doing the right thing.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:54 am

Im sorry but i have to ask WHY ? its a sorry state of affairs when a convicted criminal is given more help and rehabilitation than the victim it could only happen here in the good old uk. Scum pay a very low price for the damage they do and one day things will have to change the do good brigade will crawl back under their stone and the victims will get the justice they deserve . sj

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:02 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: Im sorry but i have to ask WHY ? its a sorry state of affairs when a convicted criminal is given more help and rehabilitation than the victim it could only happen here in the good old uk. Scum pay a very low price for the damage they do and one day things will have to change the do good brigade will crawl back under their stone and the victims will get the justice they deserve . sj

Because, supposedly, they have completed their tariff. Because this was not, in the public opinion (including mine, please note) long enough does not entitle people to take the law into their own hands. The original tariff, set by one Michael Howard, Home Secretary at the time, was that they be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure, with 15 years minimum. This was overturned by the European Court on Human Rights, who said that the boys were not given a fair hearing, in that an open trial in an adult court was intimidating for such young children - this despite the fact that modifications to the court room itself and sitting hours had been made for the case. Jack Straw actually accepted this judgement, and the minimum tariff was changed to 8 years. After this, it was up to the parole board to decide whether the two were a danger - and release them.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:08 am

The two boys should in my opinion be locked away forever they did an adult crime and therefor should spend the rest of their lives paying for their crime sarah jane

jahamaa · Post by **jahamaa** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:25 pm

Is it just my take on things, or is it a overabundance of news media reporting, that there just seems to be less reveremce for life in the world? Maybe we just hear about things that we didn't used to hear about be for all the eletronic media but, man, what you hear almost makes you afraid to fo outside anymore.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:59 am

posted by jahamaa

Is it just my take on things, or is it a overabundance of news media reporting, that there just seems to be less reveremce for life in the world? Maybe we just hear about things that we didn't used to hear about be for all the eletronic media but, man, what you hear almost makes you afraid to fo outside anymore.

jahamaa is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

More reverence for life than ever before. The media report sensational stories that is their nature. Just look at the world wide response from ordinary people to the likes of the tsunami disaster. Don't give up on mankind yet. If you think things are bad now have a closer look at the social history of your own country and see what used to be acceptable behaviour in mainstream society but now is not. A lot of things like domestic violence, child abuse are now talked about, in the past such things were not talked about and concealed, people did not want to know.

mhyh007 · Post by **mhyh007** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:33 am

I still get so upset when I read about what those 2 animals done to such a small child. I would kill for my 3 year old son, and kill anyone who harmed him. My heart breaks to think of James' mother sitting in a car years later watching her son's killer walk by. No amount of time in a cell can pay for what that monster has done. One day I hope to read that justice for poor little Jamie Bulger has really been served. What if it was your son? Would you accept that 8 years & a new life was all your beautiful baby was worth? I wouldn't. May he rest in peace. x

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:50 am

Thompson and Venables were ten years old when they killed James Bulger. Would you have had them executed after the trial? Do you want them executed now? Are you calling for vigilante killings of them in the future so that "justice for poor little Jamie Bulger has really been served" because "no amount of time in a cell can pay for what that monster has done"?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:09 am

mhyh007;727875 wrote: I still get so upset when I read about what those 2 animals done to such a small child. I would kill for my 3 year old son, and kill anyone who harmed him. My heart breaks to think of James' mother sitting in a car years later watching her son's killer walk by. No amount of time in a cell can pay for what that monster has done. One day I hope to read that justice for poor little Jamie Bulger has really been served. What if it was your son? Would you accept that 8 years & a new life was all your beautiful baby was worth? I wouldn't. May he rest in peace. x

Agreed. It doesn't matter if they were kids. Kids capable of carrying out that kind of crime deserve a punishment that fits. Bleeding hearts! Bah!

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:15 am

So what would you have done with Thompson and Venables?

Is there any age at which you start to apply a concept of criminal responsibility?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:20 am

spot;727911 wrote: So what would you have done with Thompson and Venables?

Is there any age at which you start to apply a concept of criminal responsibility?

I wouldn't have a set age as I think it must be considered case by case. But I would have had them put to their death. No amount of good they could possibly do would ever atone (on earth anyway) for what they did to that kid. There was something very blackhearted about that. I think they were bad seeds. In some ways, I think what these two children did to a fellow child is worse than if an adult had done it.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:34 am

Would you have waited until they were adult before executing them or would you have executed them when they were found guilty?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:42 am

Why would I have waited till they were adults? I dont see what purpose that would serve. I would have executed them as children when they were found guilty.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:42 am

And how would you react if you read that, for example, the Saudi Arabians were executing eleven year old children?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:45 am

spot;727988 wrote: And how would you react if you read that, for example, the Saudi Arabians were executing eleven year old children?

For what?

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:03 am

For the identical events we're discussing in this thread. If you read a newspaper story that the Saudi Arabians had executed two eleven year old children for murder would you react the same way that you have here, or would you criticize the Saudis for executing eleven year olds?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:08 am

spot;728012 wrote: For the identical events we're discussing in this thread. If you read a newspaper story that the Saudi Arabians had executed two eleven year old children for murder would you react the same way that you have here, or would you criticize the Saudis for executing eleven year olds?

I can't say I would criticize them for executing a child for murder. I might not like the way they carried out their form of execution compared to ours though. Why do you ask, Spot? I mean why choose the Saudis over any other group of people?

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:15 am

Because there's been discussion recently here about the nature of their laws.

You do agree that there should be a legal concept of criminal responsibility and that anyone who's not competent to plead shouldn't be held legally accountable, I presume.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:20 am

I don't know, I hope we're not heading into the waters of pleading insanity or something like that because I have never really been able to agree either way on that issue. I don't have a definite answer for that.

As for criminal responsibility, I think there should be a concept of it but again, I can't put a specific age to it. So I would have to say decide on the individual case.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:53 am

That doesn't seem to fit very well with "Kids capable of carrying out that kind of crime deserve a punishment that fits. Bleeding hearts! Bah", and I'm talking solely of the age of the children not questions about sanity. You'd actually have them executed after this trial?

drumbunny1 · Post by **drumbunny1** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:03 pm

My opinion is that those two need to be locked away still....although they were 11 when they committed the crime I don't believe they needed to be executed because of their age....but they do need to be locked away! Even though they were kids there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with them, so wrong that they should not be allowed back into society for life....I like to believe that all children are innocent and only when you grow up are you truly capable of evil doings, but I think its more like MOST children are innocent, sometimes a bad seed is just born and those two are pretty bad....

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:04 pm

spot;728154 wrote: That doesn't seem to fit very well with "Kids capable of carrying out that kind of crime deserve a punishment that fits. Bleeding hearts! Bah", and I'm talking solely of the age of the children not questions about sanity. You'd actually have them executed after this trial?

If they murdered another human being they way they did, then yes.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:07 pm

So, again, age doesn't come into it at all?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:08 pm

Why do you think it should, Spot?

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:27 pm

People seem to accept that dogs can be trained from birth to be killers but never seem to apply it to children.

I steal this from the Internet but I have no doubt about its general accuracy as regards the home life of the two ten year olds:Thompson's father had abandoned his wife and children five years previously, one week before the family home was burned down in a fire. Ann Thompson was a heavy drinker, who found it difficult to control her seven children. Notes (obtained by author Blake Morrison) from an NSPCC case conference on the family described it as "appalling". The children "bit, hammered, battered, tortured each other". Incidents in the report include Philip (the third child) threatening his older brother Ian with a knife. Ian asked to be taken into foster care, and when he was returned to his family, he attempted suicide with an overdose of painkillers. Both Ann and Philip had also attempted suicide in the past.

[...] One of the aspects of the case that gained much media attention was whether Venables and Thompson had been watching violent films in the days and months prior to the murder, and whether or not those movies had contributed to making the pair act in the way they did. The judge mentioned that one of their fathers possessed a large collection of violent videos, and that they probably had access to them whilst playing truant from school. As James' death was similar to the death in the film, and the father of one of the boys had been known to hire this film the week before the murder, The Sun newspaper explicitly named Child's Play 3 as a movie they had seen and printed a full front-page picture of the menacing Chucky, the child-killing doll of that horror series.Is there no question in your mind whether these two boys were mentally conditioned to behave as they did? I see them both as victims rather than criminals, and yet you'd have them executed by the state at the age of eleven in much the way socially ill-conditioned dogs are put down.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:42 pm

Theirs some that believe children are born evil and then learn how to behave and learn wrong from right from their parents, teachers, siblings... A baby will bite, hit you etc because it does not know that it is wrong and doesnt yet have a conscience...As it nears its 1st birthday hopefully it starts to recognise NO etc.but has to be checked on all misbehaviour.

If a child doesnt have discipline and structure in its life I think then theirs a possibility for that child to go on and act bad. Some people are products of their upbringing and their environments .

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:44 pm

I'm afraid I can't go with that. Would that we could brush off everyone's wrongdoings on the Twinkie Defense or Bad Parents. etc, but it just doesn't wash but maybe a small percentage of the time.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:50 pm

That's a statement of your opinion, perhaps you'd like to explain your reason for holding it.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:58 pm

spot;728214 wrote: That's a statement of your opinion, perhaps you'd like to explain your reason for holding it.

All I can tell you is that I think it's mostly a cop-out. People- adults rather, seem to think kids are pure and innocent and incapable of wrongdoing or bad thoughts so we make excuses for their behavior. Too much tv, Mom works, bullies in school, too much sugar, violent tv shows, etc. Yet most kids grow up fine with those same influences. They haven't killed anyone or committed terrible crimes. I think it's applicable that a child can commit a heinous adult crime because he wants to just like an adult can. And when that happens I think it needs to be treated as the crime it is and not watered down with excuses.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:01 pm

You regard the conditions I described in this case as a typical upbringing that normal ten year olds in those circumstances can avoid acting on?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:05 pm

spot;728224 wrote: You regard the conditions I described in this case as a typical upbringing that normal ten year olds in those circumstances can avoid acting on?

Typical, Spot? No. Fairly common? Unfortunately. I have known quite a few children with upbringings worse than what you have described who became normal worthy adults and didn't kill anyone. I feel a ten year old has enough substance and conscience to know that torturing and murdering another is wrong.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:19 pm

But what you have here are two ten year olds who did kill in these circumstances who have gone on to become normal worthy adults. Your final solution would have made them dead instead. Intervention has improved them to the extent that they're no more of a risk to society than anyone else of their age group.

This is a successful instance of rehabilitation for two children whose upbringing before the killings was abysmally short of acceptable. You'd rather they were dead. There's no aspect of deterrence involved in killing them - you don't, I hope, think that other ten year olds are told of the two as an example of what might happen to them if they kill.

I'm not sure, myself, that a ten year old fed a diet of Chucky in a dysfunctional household does actually have a clear idea of what's acceptable in society.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:26 pm

spot;728239 wrote: But what you have here are two ten year olds who did kill in these circumstances who have gone on to become normal worthy adults. Your final solution would have made them dead instead. Intervention has improved them to the extent that they're no more of a risk to society than anyone else of their age group.

This is a successful instance of rehabilitation for two children whose upbringing before the killings was abysmally short of acceptable. You'd rather they were dead. There's no aspect of deterrence involved in killing them - you don't, I hope, think that other ten year olds are told of the two as an example of what might happen to them if they kill.

I'm not sure, myself, that a ten year old fed a diet of Chucky in a dysfunctional household does actually have a clear idea of what's acceptable in society.

Spot, I didn't see where the article pointed out how these two were worthy adults in society? John Gacy was a good painter but that hardly makes up for what he did to those boys in his crawlspace. I don't necessarily see execution as a method of deterrence, although some do. I see it as a method of preventing that person from killing again and also as a form of payback. I have no problem admitting wanting a person's death avenged. But keep in mind, I'm only giving you my opinions. That dead boy may have grown up worthy and respectable. But he won't.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:36 pm

Lord Woolf, who was instrumental in their release, commented on their likelihood of re-offending. There's a summary in the Guardian:Jon Venables and Robert Thompson have been detained in separate secure units. They are different personalities with different backgrounds. However, the assessment of the respective psychiatrists and the staff of the units at which they are detained are very similar when they describe the way these two young men have responded to their punishment. Significantly, the assessments generally agree that both of these young men are genuinely extremely remorseful about the crime which they committed, and the effect which it must have had on James's family. In addition, neither has shown any aggression or propensity for violence during his detention. They have worked hard in pursuing their education and, given their circumstances, have considerable achievements to their credit. All those who have reported on them regard the risk of their reoffending as being low.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/articl ... 43,00.html

So it all comes down to an Old Testament demand for vengeance, does it?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:40 pm

There's nothing wrong with avenging a person's death in my eyes, but for me, it's not about anything biblical. It's simply about what is right and what is wrong. So are you saying Spot, that as long as one is regretful for what they did and they get a good education or a good job or find Jesus perhaps, that all should be forgiven? I can't accept that myself. I don't think we should actually.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:51 pm

I'd say it's a matter of mending what had been broken. The two ten year olds were broken, now they're mended sufficiently to get on with life without being any more of a danger to society than I am. They ought not to have been broken in the first place. In a different household setting they'd not have done what they did when they were ten.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:57 pm

Well....it seems we're at an impasse then. I don't think we're going to have much luck changing each other's minds.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:59 pm

I'm learning a lot, exploring yours. I can't conceive that there's someone in the world who would want eleven year old children executed by their government, it completely baffles me.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:04 pm

Well....by the same token, I can't believe we would forgive someone for murdering a child. I guess it's probably a good thing neither of us is sitting on the bench.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:10 pm

I don't see that forgive comes into it at all, it's a matter of salvage. Society's not in a position grant or withhold forgiveness ever, that's a matter for those who were bereaved. Some do, some don't. Perhaps you'd like to give the right to impose execution to the bereaved instead of to the court?